Core Viewpoint - The Supreme People's Court has clarified that vehicle owners cannot be exempt from liability when using assisted driving systems, emphasizing the need for accountability in traffic safety and legal standards for various driving offenses [1] Group 1: Traffic Safety and Legal Cases - The Supreme Court released a set of guiding cases related to road traffic safety, indicating a decrease in traffic accident cases and a need for clearer legal interpretations [1] - In 2025, the overall traffic safety situation is expected to remain stable, with a projected decline in both total accidents and serious incidents [1] - The number of first-instance traffic accident criminal cases received by courts was over 43,000, a decrease of more than 3% year-on-year, while first-instance dangerous driving cases reached 230,000, down nearly 16% [1] Group 2: Legal Interpretations and Responsibilities - The cases clarify the criminal liability of drivers using assisted driving systems, stating that drivers remain responsible for ensuring road safety even when such systems are activated [1] - The court emphasized that using illegal devices to evade monitoring while using assisted driving systems constitutes a serious threat to traffic safety [1] - The ruling also established that intoxicated driving after drug use should be punished more severely than alcohol-related offenses due to the greater inherent risks [1] Group 3: Specific Case Examples - A case involving a driver who caused accidents while under the influence of drugs highlighted the need for strict penalties, including potential death sentences for severe offenses [1] - The court ruled that the responsibility for traffic accidents must be assessed based on a comprehensive analysis of evidence, including the circumstances surrounding the incident [1] - The guidelines also addressed the legal status of blood sample collection by police during DUI investigations, clarifying that such actions can be considered criminal investigation measures [1]

2月13日，最高人民法院发布第48批指导性案例。这是最高人民法院首次发布道路交通安全刑事专 题指导性案例。 其中，明确毒驾肇事案件的定罪量刑规则，明确交通肇事等刑事案件中事故责任的实质认定规则， 明确醉酒驾驶案件中公安机关提取血液样本行为的性质认定规则，明确激活辅助驾驶功能情形下驾驶人 的刑事责任认定规则，明确醉驾型危险驾驶罪共犯的成立范围等。 民警到场后，对王某群进行呼气酒精含量检测，发现王某群涉嫌醉驾，将其送至医院提取血样。经 鉴定，王某群血液酒精含量为114.5毫克/100毫升，属醉酒。 法律文书明确，车载辅助驾驶系统不能代替驾驶人成为驾驶主体，驾驶人激活车载辅助驾驶功能 后，仍是实际执行驾驶任务的人，负有确保行车安全的责任。该案中，行为人激活辅助驾驶功能，并利 用私自安装的配件逃避辅助驾驶系统监测，即使其不在主驾驶位实际操控机动车，仍应作为驾驶主体承 担相应法律责任。 最高法指导案例中，明确了激活辅助驾驶功能情形下驾驶人的刑事责任认定规则。在辅助驾驶技术 应用日益广泛的背景下，有的驾驶人在激活辅助驾驶系统后不再专注驾驶，而是玩手机、睡觉等，有的 驾驶人甚至购买、使用"智驾神器"等非法配件，逃避系统安全 ...

明确醉驾型危险驾驶罪共犯的成立范围。指导性案例艾某等危险驾驶案是一起行为人"做局"诱骗他人醉 驾的案件，其裁判要点明确，采取欺骗、怂恿等方法教唆他人实施醉酒危险驾驶犯罪，情节恶劣的，依 法以危险驾驶罪的共犯论处；仅以"不会被查处""喝得不多""查不出来"等言语对醉酒危险驾驶者进行鼓 励，情节一般的，可不作为危险驾驶罪的共犯论处。 明确交通肇事等刑事案件中事故责任的实质认定规则。交通肇事等刑事案件中，当事人对事故是否应负 全部或者主要责任，往往是区分罪与非罪、罪重罪轻的关键。案例中，刘某江交通肇事宣告无罪案明 确，交通事故认定书以发生交通事故后当事人逃逸，认定其负事故全部责任或者主要责任的，人民法院 应当结合交通事故认定书对事故原因的分析和其他相关证据，审查造成事故的不同原因以及相关原因的 作用大小，按照刑法上的因果关系具体认定当事人的刑事责任。当事人的逃逸行为对引发事故或者扩大 事故没有原因力的，不作为认定刑法意义上事故责任的依据。 明确醉酒驾驶案件中公安机关提取血液样本行为的性质认定规则。公安机关查处醉驾过程中，在刑事立 案前提取嫌疑人血液样本的行为属于行政强制措施，还是刑事侦查行为，实践中存在争议。针对上 ...